1. Main proceedings
On 1 February 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Jastrzębie Zdr�j District Court for the establishment of an easement.
By a decision of 11 July 2000 (file no. I Ns 57/99) the Jastrzębie Zdr�j District Court allowed the applicant�s claim. The other party appealed against this decision.
On 15 November 2000 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the first‑instance decision and remitted the case (file no. III Ca 661/00).
Having reconsidered the case, on 2 June 2005 the Jastrzębie Zdr�j District Court allowed, in essence, the applicant�s claim (file no. I Ns 57/99). The other party again appealed against the decision.
By a decision of 26 January 2006 (file no. III Ca 1322/05) the Gliwice Regional Court again quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
The proceedings appear to be still pending.
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 9 December 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gliwice Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki � �the 2004 Act�). She indicated that she had lodged her claim in 1999 and that her case still had not been examined. She further claimed PLN 10,000 in compensation.
By a decision of 21 December 2004 (file no. III S 36/04) the Gliwice Regional Court rejected the claim on formal grounds, having found that the applicant had not sought a finding that the proceedings had been excessive.
Subsequently, the applicant lodged another complaint under the 2004 Act. She sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed PLN 10,000 in compensation.
By a decision of 5 April 2006 (file no. III S 7/06) the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed the claim. It analysed in detail the course of the proceedings and held that they had been generally conducted in a correct and timely manner.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in her case has been excessive.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES